SUDHIR KUMAR RATHORE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner has called in question the order dated 24.05.2012 by which the petitioner is sought to be transferred in the office of the Executive Engineer (Sub-LDC), M.P.P.T.C.L., Bhopal with immediate effect, alleging that the petitioner is working as Junior Engineer, was attached in the office of Additional Chief Engineer (LD), M.P.P.T.C.L, Jabalpur. Since he was interested in prosecuting the studies, he got his admission in Jabalpur Engineer College for part time B.E. Course in Electrical Engineering. As per the rules of admission, no objection certificate from the employer was required to be produced but since this certificate was not granted in favour of the petitioner, his admission was cancelled. The petitioner came before this Court by way of filing writ petition challenging the action of cancellation of his admission and the said W.P. No.9655/2011 is pending consideration before this Court. The petitioner when made the application before the respondents-authorities, instead of granting the no objection in favour of the petitioner, a notice was issued to him to show cause as to how the petitioner has taken admission without obtaining the no objection certificate from the respondents and it is further stated that looking to the shortage of the staff, it was not possible to grant permission to the petitioner to prosecute the studies. It is said in the show cause that the petitioner has committed misconduct. Such an act is also called in question. There were certain more correspondence with respect to the conduct of the petitioner and because of the said prejudice, the order impugned has been issued. It is alleged that the petitioner could not have been transferred in the manner he has been and in case such an order of transfer is implemented, right of petitioner to seek higher education would be prejudicially affected. It is contended that the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents before this Court in W.P. No.15992/2011 and a return has been filed in the said case by the respondents, which indicates that the respondents are taking such coercive steps against the petitioner so that he may not be in a position to prosecute his claim pending before this Court. This is how the order of transfer is alleged to have been issued with malafides.

(2.) UPON notice of the writ petition, respondents have filed a specific reply denying such allegations made by the petitioner. It is categorically stated by the respondents that there is acute shortage of staff. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner is not directed against the act of the present respondents as the action of cancelling the admission of the petitioner is taken by the College and the University. In the subsequent writ petition, the show cause issued to the petitioner has been called in question. It was necessary on the part of the petitioner first to obtain a no objection and then only to take admission in the college for studies. Since this was not done, the aforesaid act is in fact violation of conduct rules. It is categorically said that on account of any pending writ petition or the action initiated against the petitioner, order of transfer has not been issued. The fact relating to recording of averments of the respondents made in the pending writ petition has been explained and they have placed on record the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid W.P. No.15992/2011. In paragraph 5.14 of the return, specific pleadings have been made by the respondents that regular posts of Junior Engineer have been sanctioned at Sub-LDC, Bhopal. In the additional return it is stated that out of 7 posts, only one Sub Engineer is working at the said place. The State Load Dispatch Center, Jabalpur is responsible for all time supervision, monitoring and control of the entire State Electricity Grid of Madhya Pradesh. The Sub Load Dispatch Centers at Bhopal and Indore are responsible for monitoring the activities of their respective areas under the control of State Load Dispatch Center at Jabalpur. Looking to the fact that there was no round the clock watch in respect of supervision of the electricity distribution and on account of certain act there was failure of the grids at three levels, i.e. Northern, Eastern and North East Grid, which has resulted in putting half of the country in dark, it was decided that sufficient staff be provided in Sub Centers to monitor dispatch and distribution of the electricity so that there may not be repetition of such failure. In view of this, it was decided to transfer the petitioner to Bhopal as he was simply attached in the office at Jabalpur. This being so, the decision has been taken and the orders have been passed in this respect. It is contended that the transfer is an exigency in service and in absence of the proof of the malafide as alleged, the same is not to be interfered by this Court.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY the petitioner was on attachment posting in the office at Jabalpur as is clearly indicated in the order dated 24.05.2012 (Annexue P-13). It cannot be said that he could not have been transferred to a place where his services were more needed. The reason as to why such an order of transfer was issued has been explained by the respondents in the additional return and they have very categorically said that not only the petitioner, two other Junior Engineers namely Shri Mukesh Maltare and Shri Mehul Mehta, have been transferred to Sub-LDC, Jabalpur. Eight Supervisors trainees have been posted at Jabalpur and that being sufficient number of staff available at Jabalpur, if a person is picked up and sent to work in Sub-LDC, Bhopal, it cannot be said that the order of transfer has been issued with malafide intention. It is the specific stand of the respondents that the petitioner is not transferred on account of his calling in question the actions taken by the respondents against him, in the court of law. From the record it is also clear that when the admission of the petitioner was cancelled, he had filed writ petition before this Court but has not arrayed the present respondents as party in the said writ petition. In subsequent petition the petitioner has called in question the action initiated by the respondents for his working. That being so, it cannot be said that only because such actions were taken, the petitioner is sought to be transferred. Even otherwise, prosecuting a petition filed before this Court is always done through a lawyer and for the said purpose, personal appearance of the petitioner is not needed or required. Even if he is posted at Bhopal, his petitions can be conducted by his Counsel. As far as study part is concerned, now the admission of the petitioner has already been cancelled by the College and University, and by interim order it is made clear that any arrangement made for prosecuting the study of the petitioner would be at the risk of the petitioner. Fact remains that he has taken admission without obtaining the no objection certificate from the respondents-authorities. That being so, there is no question that any hindrance would be caused in the studies of the petitioner. If he has successfully passed the two semesters' examination, he may take admission if the no objection certificate is issued by the respondents at Bhopal as well in case such a claim is allowed by this Court. The change of University is not required as only one technical university is established in the State at Bhopal. There would be no prejudice caused to the petitioner if in case he is granted the sanction and is required to take admission at Bhopal. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any wrong committed in transferring the petitioner, nor the order impugned can be said to be bad in law on this count only.